Call of Duty: Black Ops review event, press gifts detailed

Will companies pay for good reviews? Not directly, but by plying the press …

When you work for a gaming outlet with a large audience, Activision can make your life very good. The publisher has made a habit out of offering posh "review events" for the press instead of simply sending out early code. When the reviews arrive, few discuss the free vacation they were given.

This is why we were so impressed to see a full description of the event held for Call of Duty: Black Ops reviewers in GamePro. The short story: Activision spent a lot of money to make sure reviewers were impressed before they even played the game.

"Two weeks before the game's launch, I was flown from San Francisco to LAX; from there, I was driven to Santa Monica airport where I was given a flight helmet customized with my gamertag," Tae Kim wrote about his experience reviewing the game. "I was then put into a helicopter and flown to Ojai, California, a small town about two hours north of Los Angeles. After landing in a field, I was driven to the Ojai Valley Inn and Spa, where I was given a posh suite to stay in for three days." The suite had a 360, a copy of the game, and a nice 3D television hooked up to a surround-sound system.

There was a separate area with 30 stations set up so reviewers could try the multiplayer portion of the game. "I was also given a Mad Catz Call of Duty Black Ops branded headset," Kim wrote. "At the end of the trip, I was allowed to keep the flight helmet and the Mad Catz headset. All travel and accommodations, including food, were covered by Activision."

Our point is not to call out GamePro, because it is one of the few outlets that described these conditions and disclosed the entire review process. That's classy, and frankly, it's something we need to see more of. Many other outlets didn't offer context for their early reviews, nor did they disclose freebies like the helicopter ride.

It's a hard choice for outlets

Activision doesn't send out early code for these games, and it only invites certain publications on junkets. The desire for Black Ops coverage is insane, so decent coverage gets good traffic. An early review is worth a ton of readers, which are of course valuable to the sites, and if they can't afford the trip, Activision is happy to pick up the tab for them. It's a tough choice: stick by your ethics policy, or accept a free vacation, some gifts, and boost your site's traffic.

The Ojai Valley Inn and Spa, where the reviews took place

And let's be very clear: these events are designed to wow and impress the reviewer. It's not a matter of fighting piracy, because the game had already been leaked. It's not a matter of just controlling the setting, because that can be done without putting a reviewer up in a country club for three nights. Publishers like Activision spend the money in order to squeeze out the best reviews possible, and to send an implicit message: take care of us, and we'll continue to take care of you.

What's worse for reviewers is that if they do decide to accept these trips for early coverage of the game—even if they're honest about their impressions—it looks bad. It's also harder to be objective. The fact that so few outlets talk about it is another problem; even if readers don't care about trips like this, it's clear they deserve to know under what conditions the reviews took place.

Do you wonder why no reviews have talked about the glitchy PC online play? Because online play was tested for a very short time, with consoles that were right next to each other. There was no opportunity for actual coverage of the product in a real-world setting, and certainly not on the PC.

It should be noted that some sites did try to mitigate the effects of the trip. I talked to Chris Grant, the Editor in Chief of Joystiq, and he explained that they did indeed go on the trip, although they declined the helicopter ride, handled their own transportation, and paid for their own, smaller room. "We follow the 'appearance of impropriety is as bad as impropriety itself' school of thought," Grant told Ars. "I trust my writers, but I would never expect readers to. We have to earn that trust with everything we write." He also expressed admiration for GamePro's full disclosure of the trip.

Don't expect change

Publishers will continue the junkets because they work. Reviewers will continue to go because they want the pageviews—or maybe they just like free vacations. Our best hope is for full disclosure. Let's just hope more sites follow GamePro's leadership in this area.

I'd ask if photography's allowed...take tons of pictures, then run an article on what your 60 bucks is paying for Increase traffic, earn credibility...but piss off activision. AND get a free spa visit!

Because, really, influencing reviewers only works a few times. Squeeze good review out of lavish gifts to reviewers, and yes, people are going to buy your game. If it's crap, they will start doubting the word of reviewers. Do that a few times, and only those reviewers who keep level headed and stick to their professionalism will still be believed. You will then have lost your investment...In other words, game publishers: blogs and specialized sites are a tremendous opportunity to reach your future audience. Don't kill the golden-egg laying goose.

So press events are orchestrated to enhance the experience of the journalist or reviewer? Who would have thought it?

Like others, I don't think this is a problem, as long as there is full disclosure when reviews are conducted in events like this. We're not talking about the awarding of billion-dollar/pound Government contracts here, games are entertainment and the schmoozieness of the entertainment industry is legendary.

As for Joystiq, they may well have healthy budgets for travel and subsistence for many events each year and that's all well and good but for others, game publishers picking up the tab can mean tight budgets can be spent elsewhere. It's all about disclosure so consumers can make an informed choice.

Ah, the modern journalist approach to being objective. As long as you tell your readers you were bought, it's ok.

Not that I think these kinds of things are healthy for the profession, but I do think that you have a very, very skewed understanding of the history of "journalism" and what today's modern industry was borne out of.

Yes, I think it's a bit overrated to call for a declination of such invites. However, I do think it's appropriate to mention the whole setting of the preview-event in a review.

Also, it's not really likely that a good journalist can be persuaded that many times. I would expect them to enjoy trying to stay objective and not be influenced. That's their job.

Aww common. Since when is "that's their job" a valid reason for anyone to do their job? Have you always done your job because its your job?

And the idea is still absurd. It's like telling your constituents - "ahhh yes, I met with a gentleman from big oil and he let me pick an offshore account to have my bribe forwarded to. I am making this statement in the pursuit of full disclosure. And drilling will commence in your backyard tomorrow by the way."

Well, yeah it's kinda like that.

Except that I'm free to just not buy the game, and not read their reviews anymore. My backyard remains intact.

Let's be clear, readers determine the integrity of the reviewer not the reviewer themselves. It is not a choice between ethics and going to a press event. Ethics only comes into play with the actual review itself. Did the review actually match with reality to the best of the reviewer's ability? This is the only question of ethics involved.

If the readers trusts the integrity of the reviewer they will not deny the reviewer the "perks" of their position if said "perks" gives the reader something in return, such as an early review. Readers are most likely to say "go for it and tell us all about it." This is the only reason for a "full disclosure," the readers would like to know about it. It is not necessary for ethical reasons but is good for informational purposes. Keeping the reader informed should be a priority for a reviewer.

And the idea is still absurd. It's like telling your constituents - "ahhh yes, I met with a gentleman from big oil and he let me pick an offshore account to have my bribe forwarded to. I am making this statement in the pursuit of full disclosure. And drilling will commence in your backyard tomorrow by the way."

Except this isn't politics, and is part of the entertainment business - and, like it or not, the rest of the entertainment business runs this way. Full disclosure is all I really require; if you've worked your way to a position where this kind of thing happens, more power to you. Good work, tell me the pertinent details of what the company gave you, and then give me a review. I rarely read just one review of anything before I purchase, and if you gloss over enough problems that others are picking up then I'll just discard your review as an outlier and not indicative of the actual experience.

On the note of the multiplayer - even reviews here have skipped multiplayer when it wasn't available. A good review should make mention that the multiplayer was under ideal conditions, and then move on.

A tl;dr - as long as you inform me of conditions I should be aware of when making decisions based on your review (i.e. the free trip, the multiplayer), I'm happy.

...And the idea is still absurd. It's like telling your constituents - "ahhh yes, I met with a gentleman from big oil and he let me pick an offshore account to have my bribe forwarded to. I am making this statement in the pursuit of full disclosure. And drilling will commence in your backyard tomorrow by the way."

It's nothing like that at all yikes.

First off the journalist doesn't represent you, and isn't representing anything that can be removed from you other than your own common sense.

Two, people are flown all over the place all the time to meet with other people, its business as usual. It's sales. Clients are always treated well because the person selling them the products wants them to be.

I would say the opposite is even more true --any small discomfort is vastly multiplied. They have to treat you well because treating you normally would be treating you like shit.

Imagine if they crammed everyone into a dirty smelly darkly lit room with stinky mattresses and no a/c and forced you to play the game? No one would do that unless its a weird about face marketing technique for a new game and they want to give you the experience you character goes through in the game or something.

It's like telling your constituents - "ahhh yes, I met with a gentleman from big oil and he let me pick an offshore account to have my bribe forwarded to. I am making this statement in the pursuit of full disclosure. And drilling will commence in your backyard tomorrow by the way."

Yes, we would very much like to know this so that we can take legal action if anything illegal occured because maybe I would like the drilling to start as soon as possible and if he did not tell me the rest I wouldn't question the results.

The goofy thing about all this is that reviews for this game are pretty much meaningless. Word on the street is that they sold 5 millions copies in just the first day. That already makes it a successful game in comparison to the hundreds of other games released each year. Not one of those 5 million people were hedging their purchasing decision on the reviews from gaming websites. You could maybe argue that a decent portion of the PC crowd is waiting to read about the PC specific features given the fact that MW2 thumbed their noses at them, but really the history of the franchise and the hype will sell infinitely more copies of this game than a review will.

So that's where this lavish review setup seems a little silly. Activision is spending a lot of money on pointless reviews and journalists are being overly concerned about their integrity. I am awaiting Ben's review not because he will influence my purchase but because I enjoy reading his thoughts on gaming.

I'd be curious to compare this treatment of reviewers to the treatment of the coders and artists who actually made the game. I suspect they didn't get no helicopter rides or spa weekends... Anyone with hard information care to confirm/refute this?

Full disclosure or not doesn't really matter - the majority of gamers just will not care and are generally only looking for a review that confirms their pre-made choice. Most barely stick around long enough to read the main text and just skip to the score, what makes people think they'll read some bumf about a spa. This is all they want: "Yes, you should buy COD7!" - "Sweet! Good thing I'd pre-ordered it already."

You know what would be even classier? Refusing to attend these review junkets in the first place. At GameSpot we have a strict policy of never attending review events. If more outlets would follow suit, maybe publishers would stop doing them and just send out code in a more timely fashion.

Yes, our Black Ops review was posted some 21 hours or so after the embargo as a result of our decision (our upcoming Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit review will be late for the same reason), but we prefer to review games on our own terms.

Well, I suppose it depends on whether or not the reviewer considers himself or herself a true journalist who should uphold ethical guidelines such as those provided by the Society of Professional Journalists. Full disclosure would be the minimum expectation here, but to truly be beyond suspicion of being bought, the disclosure should also note that the publication paid the journalist's travel, room, and board to participate in the reviews. Or decline the invitation altogether. If bloggers want to play journalist, they need to commit to the role. New media does not mean ethical standards no longer apply.

All I've got to say is... Activision rocks! This makes me want to start my own game review site very, very badly. I would be unbiased. Honest. Come on Oracle, where's the love for the enterprise software journalists of the world? Step it up!

Because, really, influencing reviewers only works a few times. Squeeze good review out of lavish gifts to reviewers, and yes, people are going to buy your game. If it's crap, they will start doubting the word of reviewers. Do that a few times, and only those reviewers who keep level headed and stick to their professionalism will still be believed. You will then have lost your investment...In other words, game publishers: blogs and specialized sites are a tremendous opportunity to reach your future audience. Don't kill the golden-egg laying goose.

The problem is that only a few games get this kind of treatment and it's hard to distinguish them. You can bet the reviewers of Bakugan: Battle Brawlers didn't get this kind of treatment, despite also being an Activision game. And it's not a matter of professionalism, this stuff influences you, whether you like it or not. Someone having a bad day will write a worse review, someone having the time of their life will have a better review. Have you ever listened to a CD in a recording studio testing room? If you ever get the chance, try it, it is an absolutely amazing experience. And it will sound better than it will to 99.999% of the people who ultimately buy it.

Plus it lets the developer subtlety tweak things, how were reviewers ever meant to know the internet play on PC is dodgy when the opportunity simply didn't exist to test it?

There's also the problem that it's shining an apple, not a turd. Games like Black Ops are very, very good and well polished. However, this could bump the review from a 90 to 95 and it's read by thousands of people. It influences average scores by a few points. If it winds up being an extra few points above whatever the competing Battlefield game is, then Activision wins. It's hard to judge the reviewer if they simply liked the game and had a slightly above average score, readers aren't going to notice that kind of stuff if it's not disclosed and it won't influence their behaviour.

So long as the reviewers remain objective with the game, who cares? This kind of thing is really old hat. And I do mean old hat. Like someone else said. If this influences reviewers and they give kind reviews to a shit game; they'll lose viewership when readers find that the game is garbage. In the meantime, were I a reviewer, I'd take complete advantage of these offers while still offering up my real views on a product.

If I didn't trust your opinion and objectivity on games, I would find other sites to read game reviews on. I could care less if you got a pedicure while pwning as long as your review is solid.

I actually feel bad you all are missing out on all the swag. What about a compromise of giving the swag to your readers somehow? I understand the feeling that accepting the trips etc perpetuates this type of thing, but let's be honest here...if you don't take it, there are 1,000 sites that will.

Take the trips, keep writing solid reviews and if the companies don't invite you back, oh well.